Changing Cherokee

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: fundamentally flawed4% picked this

   McLoughlin’s studies of the impact of missionaries on Cherokee culture during the 1820s are fundamentally flawed, since McLoughlin ignores the greater impact of White

   This is overvaluing the "unfortunately" critique in the last paragraph. The author is just saying, "This book isn't perfect". But the final taste she leaves us with is very complimentary. He is undoubtedly correct in X, and he has made a significant contribution to our understanding of Y.

   4%
2. B

   Correct80% picked this

   Though his work is limited in perspective, McLoughlin is substantially correct that changes in the Cherokee culture in the 1820s were mediated by the

   Why this is right

   This balances the criticism and the praise more properly, putting the criticism in the warm-up clause and the praise into the main clause, as the latter is the author's bigger emphasis. All this language is coming from the 4th paragraph, when the author finally showed her voice and her perspective on this book / this matter. She says that McLoughlin overlooks earlier sources of influence in the 1700s. So the book is "limited in perspective". Its perspective concentrates on the 1800s, overlooking and obscuring what went down in the 1700s. But she says that McLoughlin is "undoubtedly correct" about how Cherokee culture changed. McLoughlin is arguing that the Cherokee weren't compelled to assimilate. Rather, they maintained their tribal identity and customs while expanding their horizons to participate more in the Euro-American culture, for the sake of their protection / benefit.

   Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%
3. C

   Wrong Emphasis2% picked this

   Although McLoughlin is correct in asserting that cultural changes among the Cherokee were autonomous and so not the result of the presence of missionaries,

   This answer puts the emphasis (i.e. the main clause) on a critique, and buries the praise in the subsidiary clause. The author was by-enlarge supporting McLoughlin's book and his findings, so we wouldn't want an answer to focus on criticism. Even worse, the author never made this criticism of "overemphasizing intratribal conflicts". The author's only criticism was that McLoughlin didn't address the effect missionaries had on Cherokee culture in the 1700s.

   2%
4. D

   Wrong 2nd Idea9% picked this

   McLoughlin has shown that Cherokee culture not only flourished during the 1820s, but that changes in Cherokee culture during this time developed naturally from

   The first clause here makes sense, but the second one doesn't match up with anything. The end of the 3rd paragraph seems to contradict that "changes developed naturally from elements already within Cherokee culture": The identity and culture that resulted were distinctively Cherokee, yet reflected the larger political and social setting in which they flourished. And the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph also emphasizes this: Missionaries did have a decisive impact during these years.

   9%
5. E

   Opposite: overlooks the 1820s6% picked this

   Although McLoughlin overlooks a number of relevant factors in Cherokee culture change in the 1820s, he convincingly demonstrates that these changes

   The complaint the author makes is that McLoughlin concentrates too much on the 1820s and overlooks what happened in in the 1700s.

   6%